Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T22:08:11.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulphadiazine-resistance in Plasmodium gallinaceum and its relation to other antimalarial compounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Ann Bishop  and
Elspeth W. McConnachie
Ann Bishop
Affiliation:
Molteno Institute, University of Cambridge
Elspeth W. McConnachie
Affiliation:
Molteno Institute, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A thirty-two-fold increase in resistance to sulphadiazine has been induced in Plasmodium gallinaceum in chicks by treatment with that drug.

2. No loss in resistance to sulphadiazine occurred in the resistant strain during cyclical passage through Aëdes aegypti.

3. The sulphadiazine-resistant strain was resistant also to sulphathiazole, sulphanilamide and sulphapyridine, but not to mepacrine, quinine or pamaquin. An increase in sensitivity to pamaquin was observed.

4. The sulphadiazine-resistant strain was resistant to paludrine and its methyl homologue M 4430.

5. In strains maintained in a state of acute infection and treated with sulphadiazine, resistance to paludrine developed more rapidly than resistance to sulphadiazine, and in one strain a high degree of resistance to paludrine was obtained before any increase in resistance to sulphadiazine could be detected.

6. Resistance to paludrine as induced by sulphadiazine, develops rapidly and extends at once over the full range of doses which the chick will tolerate, whereas resistance to paludrine as induced by that drug itself, develops more slowly and by stages.

7. Whereas resistance to paludrine is induced readily by treatment with sulphadiazine, resistance to sulphadiazine is induced by paludrine only after treatment with high doses of the drug for a prolonged period.

8. In latent infections of Plasmodium gallinaceum resistance to paludrine or sulphadiazine was not induced by sulphadiazine during the period of the experiment (49–75 days), though the aggregate dosage of drug used was much greater than that with which resistance was induced in strains maintained in an acute state.

9. It is not considered probable that cross-resistance between sulphadiazine and paludrine is due to a similar mode of action of these drugs, as whereas sulphadiazine is antagonized by p-amino-benzoic acid paludrine is not.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1950 , pp. 163 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, A. B. D. & Seaton, D. R. (1949). Trans. E. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 42, 314.Google Scholar
Bishop, A. & Bibkett, B. (1947). Nature, Lond., 159, 884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, A. & Birkett, B. (1948). Parasitology, 39, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, A. & Birkett, B. (1949). Parasitology (in the Press).Google Scholar
Bishop, A. & McConnachie, E. W. (1948). Nature, Lond., 162, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coggeshall, L. T., Maier, J. & Best, C. A. (1941). J. Amer. med. Ass. 117, 1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coggeshall, L. T., Porter, R. J. & Laird, R. L. (1944). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. N.Y. 57, 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. S. & Hinshelwood, C. N. (1943). Trans. Faraday Soc. 39, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairley, N. H. (1945). Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 38, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J., Boyd, B. L. & Josephson, E. S. (1948). J. Pharmacol. 94, 60.Google Scholar
Hawking, F. & Perry, W. L. M. (1948). Lancet, 2, 850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawking, F. & Perry, W. L. M. (1948 a). Brit. J. Pharmacol. Chemother. 3, 321.Google Scholar
Knoppers, A. T. (1947). Nature, Lond., 160, 606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leishman, A. W. & Kelsall, A. R. (1944). Lancet, 2, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lourie, E. M. & Seaton, D. R. (1949). Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 42, 315.Google Scholar
Mates, J. & Riley, E. (1942). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. N.Y. 50, 152.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. K., Litchfield, J. T. & White, H. J. (1942). J. Pharmacol. 75, 89.Google Scholar
Rollo, I. M., Williamson, J. & Lourie, E. M. (1948). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 40, 453.Google Scholar
Schmidt, L. H., Genther, C. L., Fbadken, R. & Squibes, W. (1949). J. Pharmacol. 95, 382.Google Scholar
Terzian, L. A., Stahler, N. & Weathersby, A. B. (1949). J. infect. Dis. 84, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonkin, I. M. (1946). Brit. J. Pharmacol. Chemother. 1, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, J. & Lourie, E. M. (1947). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 41, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, J., Bertram, D. S. & Loubie, E. M. (1947). Nature, Lond., 159, 885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar